hello all, i'm following the "copper vs. non copper" thread and i have to admit i have a question myself...i think in the past MOMG answered this one but there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then...

my understanding is.........GRZ/KRY both propose a "cyanide leach" mill of some kind...

kry is a "cyanide in pulp" proposal

grz is a "cyanide" f' i dont know proposal....

the real difference seems to be the loss of gold from "flotation" when processing copper.....there is a necessity for two dam's also when processing copper..

what i'm wondering is why can't you process the ore from LC in the same "cyanide leach" mill as LB without using the "flotation" method and seperate dam for copper??...

in some areas of LC i can see where you would actually use the exact same method of grz.....

in any case, the difference explained by "todd bruce" was $160mil dollars...one thing that always struck me funny was the "silver issue"....LC contains some 20mil oz of silver.......it's never mentioned...anywhere! other than the development plan....... that far exceeds the $160mil gap....

any thoughts? i'm no miner but placer had a copper/gold concession with LC.... there is 20 mil oz in silver in LC.....and i always got the impression from doug b. (grz) that there was a "dis-agreement" between grz and kry on the copper content of the land where the backfill from grz onto kry property was to be placed (unless kry got there first)....kry claims it is barren rock....grz claims economical copper..